Socialist Republic of Wikimedia anyone?
----- Original Message ---- From: mboverload mboverloadlister@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:49:57 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"
[[Principality of Sealand]], anyone?
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we can go by US copyright law. The alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive position of any country whatsoever. Given the expansive meanings of "moral rights", and the impossibility in some countries of surrendering them, this might make such a project impossible. As obvious, I am not a lawyer , and I tend to write the way I hope things will be.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was incorrect.
For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July 2008, when Erik would already be Deputy Director.
-Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thursday 21 August 2008 08:08:49 Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Socialist Republic of Wikimedia anyone?
On a more serious note, perhaps bribe^H^H^H^H^Heconomic aid could be given to the government of an internationally recognised small country (say, Nauru), so that they drop copyright altogether?
----- Original Message ---- From: mboverload mboverloadlister@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:49:57 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"
[[Principality of Sealand]], anyone?
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com
wrote:
Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we can go by US copyright law. The alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive position of any country whatsoever. Given the expansive meanings of "moral rights", and the impossibility in some countries of surrendering them, this might make such a project impossible. As obvious, I am not a lawyer , and I tend to write the way I hope things will be.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton
thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding resolution would be a much better means.
I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was incorrect.
For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July 2008, when Erik would already be Deputy Director.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2008 08:08:49 Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Socialist Republic of Wikimedia anyone?
On a more serious note, perhaps bribe^H^H^H^H^Heconomic aid could be given to the government of an internationally recognised small country (say, Nauru), so that they drop copyright altogether?
Why would you want to drop copyright anyway?
2008/8/22 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
On Thursday 21 August 2008 08:08:49 Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Socialist Republic of Wikimedia anyone?
On a more serious note, perhaps bribe^H^H^H^H^Heconomic aid could be given to the government of an internationally recognised small country (say, Nauru), so that they drop copyright altogether?
If you feel the world needs a closed source version of linux maybe.
There are countries which have more relaxed situations with regard to copyright than the US. For various reasons there would be little benefit in relocating to them
On Friday 22 August 2008 19:58:54 Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2008 08:08:49 Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Socialist Republic of Wikimedia anyone?
On a more serious note, perhaps bribe^H^H^H^H^Heconomic aid could be given to the government of an internationally recognised small country (say, Nauru), so that they drop copyright altogether?
Why would you want to drop copyright anyway?
If said country wouldn't be cut out of the Internet, a server located in it could host literally anything.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org